In OCCA case No. S 2011-0023, David Franco appealed his conviction for several charges related to using a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, feloniously pointing a firearm, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling that dismissed some of the charges against him. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1179, Donnell Devon Smith appealed his conviction for multiple crimes including robbery, sexual battery, and others. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny his appeal. One judge dissented. Smith was charged with various offenses in multiple cases and pleaded guilty to all charges on October 19, 2010. He received several sentences, some of which were life sentences, and others ranged from ten to twenty years. After entering his pleas, Smith requested to withdraw them, saying he felt coerced and that he had not been properly informed about the punishments he faced for his crimes. The court looked at three main points raised in Smith's appeal: 1. Smith argued he should be allowed to withdraw his plea for one count of attempted robbery because the ten-year sentence he received was too long. The court found that his sentence was actually five years too long and modified it to the correct five-year maximum. 2. Smith claimed he did not understand the range of sentences for some charges and that this lack of understanding meant his pleas were not voluntary. The court decided that while he had been misadvised, the pleas still appeared to be valid overall because he benefitted from how the sentences were set up to run concurrently. 3. He asserted that he was punished twice for some of the same actions and that some of his pleas lacked enough factual support. The court concluded that the evidence supported the different charges, and there were no double jeopardy issues. The court ultimately affirmed his convictions for all cases besides modifying the sentence that was too long and correcting a minor paperwork mistake regarding how sentences should run together. The court ruled that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily made despite the confusion around sentencing ranges. The decision closed by affirming the ruling of the lower court regarding Smith's attempt to withdraw his pleas, confirming most of the sentences while adjusting the one that exceeded the maximum allowed by law.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-1139, a petitioner appealed his conviction for False Personation of Another to Create Liability. In a published decision, the court decided to grant the appeal. The court concluded that the trial court made a mistake by not holding a hearing on the petitioner's request to withdraw her no-contest plea. The decision requires the case to go back to the lower court for this necessary hearing. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-260, the petitioner appealed his conviction for ten counts of child sexual abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant the petitioner’s request for a remand for a new hearing with conflict-free counsel. The case focused on whether the petitioner’s guilty plea was entered knowingly and intelligently, particularly regarding the requirement that he be a person responsible for the child's health, safety, or welfare. One judge dissented, arguing that the majority's discussion on the plea's validity was unnecessary and constituted advisory dicta.
In OCCA case No. C-2010-322, Silvon Dane Kinter appealed his conviction for Assault and Battery with a Deadly Weapon. In a published decision, the court decided to grant Kinter's request to withdraw his guilty plea and vacate his conviction. One judge dissented. Kinter was charged in 2009 and could not afford his attorney, who then moved to withdraw. Kinter wanted to switch to a public defender but was denied. He eventually pleaded guilty to the charges after being pressured by the court, not fully understanding his situation. The court later recognized that he was indigent but did so after Kinter had already entered his guilty plea. The appeals court found that Kinter’s rights were violated when he wasn't properly provided with conflict-free counsel or a chance to adequately present his case, leading to an involuntary plea. Thus, they instructed for further proceedings based on their opinion.
In OCCA case No. F-2010-288, Gary Don Thompson II appealed his conviction for Possession of Marijuana, After Conviction of Two or More Felonies. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the judgment and sentence, meaning Thompson's conviction was thrown out. One judge dissented. Thompson was found guilty by a jury. The trial took place in Okmulgee County. The jury recommended that Thompson get ten years in prison and pay a $5,000 fine. Thompson's lawyers argued that the evidence used to convict him was obtained in a way that was not allowed by law. Before the trial, they asked the court to suppress, or not allow, the evidence. The court denied this request based on what the police officer said at an earlier hearing. However, during the trial, the officer explained what happened in detail, and his story was different from what he said before. The officer admitted that he did not have any reason to think Thompson was doing anything wrong. He only saw Thompson walking at night in an area he thought had a lot of crime. At trial, the officer said that Thompson threw away a bag of marijuana after the officer told him to stop. The court looked at this new information and believed that Thompson was stopped by the police without enough reason to do so. Because of this, the court said that Thompson's actions of throwing away the marijuana were the result of being detained improperly, and they found that the previous court had made a mistake in not allowing the evidence to be suppressed. The final decision was to reverse Thompson's conviction and send the case back with instructions to dismiss it.
In OCCA case No. S-2009-567, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order suppressing certain evidence. One judge dissented. Charles Stephens was arrested after police searched his apartment and found illegal drugs. He asked the court to remove the evidence from the case, saying the police had not followed the law when they obtained it. Initially, a lower court agreed to suppress some of the evidence but allowed some to remain. The State, unhappy with this decision, did not properly challenge the ruling. Later, another judge looked at the case and agreed that since the State did not appeal the initial ruling, they had to follow it. The judge then decided that the evidence not suppressed was also obtained through illegal means and thus had to be removed from consideration in the trial. The State argued against this decision, claiming the suppression ruling was wrong and that the defendant did not have a right to claim ownership of some of the evidence. However, the higher court, after reviewing the case, found that the lower court was correct in its rulings. The final decision was to keep the evidence suppressed, meaning it could not be used against the appellant in court.
In OCCA case No. S-2009-667, the State of Oklahoma appealed its conviction concerning Christy Anne Selders. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the decision of the District Court of Tulsa County, which dismissed one of the charges against Selders. One judge dissented. The case began when Selders was charged with trying to make illegal drugs and also for defrauding a hotel. During the preliminary hearing, the judge had to decide if the police had a good reason to search Selders' hotel room and if they could use the evidence found there. After the State presented its case, Selders argued that the police search was not legal because they didn't have the right to enter the hotel room without proper permission. The judge agreed with Selders and decided to dismiss the charge related to manufacturing drugs, saying that the evidence was not strong enough to link Selders to the crime. The State didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal, saying the judge made mistakes. They believed that Selders had given permission for the search and that there was enough evidence to try her. Another judge reviewed the case and eventually decided to uphold the original judge's decision. This judge agreed that the police may have thought they had permission to search, but still, they couldn’t prove that Selders was connected to any illegal activity in the hotel room. After reviewing everything, the court decided not to change the first ruling. They said that the dismissal of the charge was correct and that there was no abuse of discretion by the judges involved in the case. In the end, the court confirmed that the order to dismiss the charge against Selders was valid, meaning she would not face trial for that particular accusation.
In OCCA case No. S-2008-953, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision regarding the conviction of James Lee Sharrock for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had found that the child's out-of-court statements were inadmissible. The majority of the court agreed, while one member dissented. The case started when Sharrock was charged with two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. At a preliminary hearing, the judge decided that there was not enough evidence to proceed with one of the counts. This was because the statements made by a four-year-old child could not be used, as the child was not present to testify, which made those statements hearsay. The State argued that the judge made a mistake by not allowing the testimony of two adults who had interacted with the child. These adults wanted to share what the child said about their experience. However, the judge explained that according to Oklahoma law, the child must either be available to testify or fit certain criteria for hearsay to be considered valid. The State then appealed this decision, and another judge confirmed the initial ruling. Finally, the case was brought to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which reviewed the arguments and the evidence presented. They concluded that the lower court's decision was correct because the magistrate had the right to determine whether the child was available to testify. In the end, the court upheld the initial decisions made by both lower court judges, stating no mistakes were found in their rulings. The final rulings and orders were affirmed, confirming that the hearsay statements from the child could not be used in the case against Sharrock.
In OCCA case No. S-2007-668, the defendant appealed his conviction for Second Degree Rape and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that the defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-432, Keyion Kaseen Terry appealed his conviction for Possession of Controlled Drug in Jail (marijuana). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse and dismiss Terry’s conviction due to jurisdictional issues related to a motion to quash that had been granted by the trial court, which indicated insufficient evidence to proceed with that charge. One member of the court dissented, expressing frustration over the outcome and arguing that the trial court should have retained the ability to reinstate the charge since the original ruling to quash was seen as erroneous.
In OCCA case No. F-2007-102, #Hightower appealed his conviction for #forcible oral sodomy, resisting arrest, and indecent exposure. In a (published) decision, the court decided #to reverse the conviction for indecent exposure and remand for a new trial, while affirming the other convictions. #One dissented. Corey Antwonne Hightower was found guilty of three crimes. The first crime was for forcible oral sodomy, the second was for resisting arrest, and the third was for indecent exposure. The jury decided that Hightower should spend a total of eleven years and eight months in prison for the first two crimes and three years for the third. Hightower's team argued that his convictions for forcible oral sodomy and indecent exposure should not both count because they were too similar. They also said that the indecent exposure charge was wrong since the act wasn’t mentioned in the original court documents, and he didn't get a fair chance to defend himself. Finally, they claimed the judge didn’t properly tell the jury how to use the evidence of other crimes during the trial. After looking closely at everything presented in the case, the court decided that it was not fair to convict Hightower for the indecent exposure. They found that the original case wasn’t clear about which incidents occurred when, especially since the indecent exposure was thought to have happened on a different date than the other crimes. The judges agreed that Hightower should have another chance to defend himself for the indecent exposure charge. However, they said that the convictions for forcible oral sodomy and resisting arrest would remain. The court's decision was important because it showed that everyone has the right to know exactly what they are being charged with and that they need a fair chance to defend themselves in court.
In OCCA case No. S-2007-885, the defendant appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the earlier decisions made by the lower courts. One judge dissented. The case started in the District Court of Tulsa County, where the defendant was accused of not registering as a sex offender. After looking at the evidence presented by the state, the special judge decided there was not enough evidence to go to trial. The state didn't agree and decided to appeal this decision, claiming that the lower courts made errors in their judgments. The main points raised in the appeal included whether there was enough evidence to charge the defendant, if the defense of being homeless should be considered, and if homelessness could excuse the defendant from registering as a sex offender. After listening to arguments and reviewing all the evidence and decisions made previously, the court found that the lower courts did not make mistakes. The judges agreed that there was not enough evidence to hold the defendant for trial and that the reasons given by the lower courts were valid. As a result, the court upheld the decisions of the lower judges and ruled that the defendant would not be tried for the charges brought against him. The final orders from the lower courts were affirmed, meaning that the case was closed without any changes.
In OCCA case No. M-2007-192, the appellant appealed his conviction for three counts of Threatening by Telephone or Other Electronic Communication. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case. One judge dissented. The appellant, Robert Eugene Schwab, was found guilty by a jury in Creek County for sending threats through electronic communication. The jury decided his punishment would consist of a short jail time and fines. However, the case raised a significant legal question about whether the appellant's actions were considered a crime at the time he committed them. During the trial, it was discovered that the specific crime Schwab was convicted of was not defined as illegal when he sent the emails in question. After looking into this issue, the State acknowledged this error and agreed that the conviction should be reversed. The court decided that Schwab's actions did not fit into the law as it was understood at that earlier time, which led to the decision to dismiss the charges against him.
In OCCA case No. F-2006-1055, Jaumon Mondell Okyere appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder and Child Neglect. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the conviction for First Degree Murder but reversed the conviction for Child Neglect with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Jaumon Mondell Okyere was found guilty of killing Richard Briggs and neglecting Briggs’ infant child. The case began when Okyere, angry over Briggs’ relationship with his former partner, Melonie Totty, conspired to lure Briggs into a trap where he could harm him. On March 18, 2005, Okyere shot Briggs multiple times and left the baby in a cold car, which was later found unharmed. During the trial, Totty testified against Okyere, leading to his conviction. Okyere argued that his trial was unfair because of issues related to his legal representation, including an alleged conflict of interest where the public defender's office previously represented Totty. The court found that Okyere's right to effective counsel was not violated, stating that the trial court took appropriate steps to address potential conflicts. Okyere also raised objections over the trial court granting continuances for the prosecution without proper procedure, insufficiency of the evidence, and inadequate jury instructions on the Child Neglect charge. The court concluded that any errors did not significantly impact the trial's fairness. However, it did find that the jury was not properly instructed on the requirement of being responsible for the child's welfare, which led to the reversal of the Child Neglect conviction. Ultimately, while Okyere’s conviction for murder was upheld, the court instructed to dismiss the charges related to child neglect due to the instructional error. One judge disagreed with the dismissal, believing the matter warranted a new trial instead.
In OCCA case No. S 2005-702, Roley appealed his conviction for Child Abuse/Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling. One judge dissented. Michael Ray Roley was charged with child abuse/neglect. This case started in Creek County District Court on November 9, 2004. After some hearings, the judge let Roley go free by granting a motion to quash, which means the charges against him were dismissed before a trial could happen. The State of Oklahoma, which was prosecuting Roley, didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal it. They brought up three main points they believed were wrong with the judge's ruling. First, they argued that a previous case about a person’s right to confront witnesses didn’t apply to preliminary hearings. They said Roley was claiming a right to confront witnesses too early. Second, the State believed that Roley should not have been allowed to extend this right to preliminary hearings in such a broad way. Finally, they suggested that the court should consider the need to protect the child who was the victim in this case. After thoroughly examining the arguments and evidence, the court agreed with the trial judge’s decision. They highlighted that Oklahoma’s Constitution and laws give a person a right to confront witnesses during preliminary hearings, just like in a full trial. The court also noted that hearsay evidence, or what someone said out of court, could not be used unless the person who made the statement was unavailable. In this case, the children who were supposed to testify did not do so, making what the State presented unacceptable to prove that a crime had happened. The judges deliberated and concluded that the trial judge acted correctly when deciding not to allow the case to proceed based on the evidence presented. Therefore, the court supported the decision of the trial court to grant the motion to quash the charges against Roley, keeping him from being tried. In the end, the court affirmed the lower decision and stated that they would issue a mandate to finalize the ruling. One judge had a different opinion and disagreed, but the majority agreed that the earlier ruling should stand.
In OCCA case No. S-2005-1067, one person appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to use the transcript of a witness's preliminary hearing testimony during the trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Deangelo Favors and another person who were charged with serious crimes. During the preliminary hearing, a key witness, Roberta Verner, testified, but another potential witness, Lesha Huggins, was not allowed to testify even though the defense wanted to present her testimony, claiming it would prove Verner lied about the crimes. The judge decided that Verner was unavailable for the trial, which meant her earlier statements could not be used unless the defense had a chance to fully question her and present their case. The judge believed that not allowing Huggins to testify took away the defense's opportunity to question Verner properly. The State wanted to appeal the decision, saying it was wrong to not allow them to use Verner’s testimony. However, after looking closely at the facts and arguments from both sides, the court found that the trial judge acted correctly in not letting the State use Verner's earlier testimony. The court noted that it is important for defendants to have the right to question witnesses against them, and that this right was not met in the preliminary hearing because the defense could not call Huggins to support their case. In the end, the decision to deny the State's appeal was upheld, and the case was sent back to the lower court for more proceedings based on the ruling.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-855, Fomby appealed his conviction for second-degree burglary, possession of a controlled substance, and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence. One judge dissented. Fomby was found guilty of several crimes in Comanche County. He received a long sentence of sixty years for each burglary, two years for the possession of methamphetamine, and ten years for concealing stolen property. These sentences were to be served one after the other, making the total time very long. Fomby claimed that there were many mistakes during his trial. He said the court wrongly changed a standard instruction by adding details about his past sentences, which might have influenced the jury. He also mentioned that the prosecutor said he was no longer considered innocent before the trial even concluded, which he felt was unfair. Furthermore, he argued that the court allowed evidence of other crimes unfairly, and he did not get a fair hearing for new charges that were added. The appeal court looked at all these claims. They agreed that the change in jury instruction was a mistake and the prosecutor's comments on Fomby's innocence were improper. Because of these two main points, the court decided to change his sentences from sixty years each to thirty years to be served together instead of one after the other. They concluded that some of Fomby’s other arguments did not have enough merit to change the outcome of the case. For example, they found there was enough evidence to show he knowingly hid stolen items and had possession of methamphetamine. In the end, most of Fomby's convictions were upheld, but his sentences were significantly reduced to make them less severe. One judge did not agree with this modification, believing the original sentences were justified given Fomby’s serious crimes and history.
In OCCA case No. F-2005-366, Timothy Purcell Teafatiller appealed his conviction for Possession of Concealed Drug. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case for further proceedings. One judge dissented. Teafatiller was found guilty by a jury for having a small amount of methamphetamine that was discovered in his wallet. He was sentenced to six years in prison. He raised seven main points in his appeal. The court mainly focused on one significant issue: the destruction of the evidence against him, which Teafatiller argued violated his rights. The drugs were received by a state bureau for testing and then sent back to the sheriff’s office for destruction without informing Teafatiller or his lawyer. This meant that Teafatiller could not have the chance to test the evidence that was being used against him. The court found that this action went against laws meant to protect the rights of individuals and ensure a fair trial. The judges concluded that the destruction of the evidence constituted a serious violation of Teafatiller's rights. While in previous similar cases, not having evidence might not have led to a reversible error, in this situation, the specific evidence that formed the basis of the charges was completely destroyed. Because there was no opportunity for Teafatiller to review or challenge the evidence, the court decided the only fair action was to reverse the conviction. As a result, the court mandated that the case be sent back for new proceedings where Teafatiller would have the chance to examine the evidence against him, ensuring his rights were upheld.
In OCCA case No. F 2004-1238, James Alan Wade appealed his conviction for Embezzlement of Rented Property. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. Mr. Wade was found guilty by a jury of embezzling a rented car and was sentenced to twenty years in prison. He appealed this conviction, raising several arguments. He claimed there wasn't enough evidence to prove his prior felony convictions and that his sentence was too harsh. He also argued that his lawyer didn’t do enough to protect his rights during the trial. The court looked closely at whether there was enough proof that Mr. Wade had committed the crime he was accused of. One key point was whether the car he rented was valued correctly according to the law. The court found that the prosecution didn't provide evidence proving the car's value was over $1,000, which is necessary for the embezzlement charge. Because of this lack of evidence, the court decided that Mr. Wade should not have been convicted and ordered that the case be dismissed. The dissenting judge, however, thought that there was enough evidence for the jury to make their decision and believed the conviction should be upheld.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-78, Allen Eugene McCarthy appealed his conviction for Driving Under the Influence and other related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to grant McCarthy's request to withdraw his guilty plea for the DUI charge only, while affirming the rest of his sentence. One judge dissented.
In OCCA case No. C-2005-120, Charles Hackney McBride appealed his conviction for Manufacturing a Controlled Dangerous Substance and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. In a published decision, the court decided to grant McBride's request and remand the case for a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. One judge dissented. McBride had entered a guilty plea to the charges in January 2004 and was placed in a rehabilitation program. After completing the program, he was sentenced in January 2005 to life imprisonment for manufacturing the controlled substance and one year in the county jail for marijuana possession. Eight days after his sentencing, McBride sought to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming his sentence was too harsh and he had not waived his right to a hearing. However, the district court denied his motion without holding a hearing, which was mandatory according to court rules. The appeals court acknowledged that McBride was entitled to this hearing to ensure proper procedures were followed. Therefore, the court decided to require the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on McBride's application to withdraw his plea, allowing him another chance to defend his claims.
In OCCA case No. F 2003-959, Tomas DeLeon, III appealed his conviction for five counts of Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the convictions. One judge dissented. Tomas DeLeon, III was found guilty of crimes against children. A jury decided on the punishment for these crimes, saying he should go to prison for a total of about 14 years. He did not like the decision and asked the court to review it. He said that there were many mistakes made during his trial. First, DeLeon thought there wasn’t enough evidence to support one of the counts against him. He also said that his lawyer didn’t help him well. His lawyer didn’t try to cancel one of the charges, didn’t argue well during the trial, and didn’t use some evidence that could help DeLeon. DeLeon also complained that the people who were trying to prove he was guilty acted in a way that unfairly influenced the jury during their closing statements. He felt it wasn’t fair because they talked about other bad things he had done in the past. DeLeon argued that the judge didn’t make sure everything was recorded properly for his appeal, which hurt his rights. Then, he mentioned that the judge said he could not earn “good time,” which is a way prisoners can reduce their sentences for good behavior. Finally, he believed there wasn’t enough evidence to prove he did the bad things they said he did. He thought the errors and problems during the trial were so strong that the court should either take away his convictions or lessen his punishments. After looking closely at everything, the court decided that the convictions should stay as they were. They found that DeLeon hadn’t shown enough proof that his lawyer made big mistakes. They felt that the choices made during his trial didn’t create any serious unfairness. However, they did agree that the judge made a mistake by saying DeLeon could not earn “good time.” They ordered that this part of the decision should be removed from his sentence. But overall, the court upheld the jury's decision, meaning DeLeon will still go to prison for the crimes he was convicted of.
In OCCA case No. C-2003-136, Justin Lyle Thomas appealed his conviction for Unlawful Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute, Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Drug, and Operating a Motor Vehicle Under Suspension. In a published decision, the court decided to reverse the district court's decision regarding his ability to withdraw certain guilty pleas. One judge dissented. Thomas had pleaded guilty to several charges and was supposed to complete a drug court program to avoid sentencing. However, after not doing well in the program, the state wanted to sentence him. He asked to withdraw his guilty pleas for some of the counts, and the court agreed to let him withdraw his pleas for two of the charges but denied his request for the other two. Thomas argued that he had not been properly informed about the possible sentences for the charges. The court found that there was a mistake about the punishment ranges, specifically for the drug charges. They ruled that this mistake affected his decision to plead guilty, and because of this, he should have been allowed to withdraw his pleas for all counts. The court decided in favor of Thomas and said the lower court had made a mistake when it denied his request. However, one judge disagreed and believed that the incorrect information did not really influence Thomas’s decision to plead guilty to the other charges.
In OCCA case No. F-2002-470, Dearel Oglesby appealed his conviction for Distribution of a Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm his conviction but modify his sentence to 20 years in prison with a $20,000 fine. One judge dissented. Dearel Oglesby was found guilty by a jury of selling methamphetamine. He was sentenced to life in prison, which he believed was too harsh. Oglesby raised four main issues in his appeal. First, he claimed that the trial allowed some evidence that should not have been included according to the state’s rules. The court found that even though one lab report was late, it was not a major issue since it didn't harm Oglesby’s case. Second, Oglesby argued that he did not get his right to a preliminary hearing, but the court found there was enough evidence to prove there might have been a crime. Third, he was concerned that the jury saw evidence about other drug sales he allegedly made, which he thought was unfair. The court noted that while some of this evidence was not really necessary, the prosecutor did not act on it inappropriately. Finally, Oglesby spoke about a witness being added during the trial, but the court felt that was handled correctly since it wasn’t a key part of the case. The judges found that Oglesby’s punishment was extreme considering the small amount of drugs involved, so they decided to reduce his sentence instead of just keeping the life sentence. This decision was met with some disagreement from one judge, who thought the evidence was relevant and that the original sentence should stay as is.